How to peer review for academic journals

Peer review is the quality-control process that allows us to trust and build on published research.

Steps in the process

1. Author submits manuscript. Editor screens the manuscript. This may result in desk rejection.
2. Manuscript passes screening and is sent for peer review
3. Peer experts review the manuscript
4. Peer review reports are submitted
5. Editorial decision is made: Accept, Major or minor revisions required or Reject

If revisions are requested, the author revises the manuscript and may go through additional rounds of review before a final decision is made.

• Check the journal’s guidelines on the journal’s website or linked to within the invitation to peer review email.
• Log in to the review submission portal and look for any structured forms, and make sure you have access to all supplementary files.
• Set a time to complete your peer review before the deadline.

Introduction

• Is it clear what is already known about this topic?
• Is the research question or aims clearly outlined?
• Is the research question justified, given what is already known about the topic?

Methodology

• Is the study design appropriate to answer the aim?
• Are the study methods valid and reliable?
• Is there enough detail to replicate the study?
• If applicable, is the process of subject selection clear?
• Are the variables defined and measured appropriately?

Results

• Are the results clearly stated?
• Are the data presented in a clear and appropriate way?
• Is there any discussion in this section (there shouldn’t be)?
• Are the graphs and tables clear and useful to the reader?

Discussion and conclusions

• Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted?
• Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study?
• Are the conclusions supported by the results? If not, are they supported by references?
• Do the study’s limitations compromise its validity, or do they offer opportunities for future research?

Abstract

• Now that you have read the whole paper, does the abstract clearly summarise what the results and conclusions are, and the methodology used?

Title

• Now that you know what the study is about, is the title informative and relevant?
• Does the title overstate the scope or findings of the study?

References

• Are the references relevant?
• Have key studies been referenced, or are key references missing?

Overall

• What did this study add to what was already known on this topic?
• Is the article consistent within itself?
• Is there anything that stands out in the author or funder statement(s) that makes you question the objectivity of the study?

Note: This is based on the Web of Science Academy Peer Review Guidelines. Many journals also provide their own reviewer guidelines or forms with specific questions to help you.

• Don’t shy away from your first invitations to peer review. They can be genuinely beneficial, as being a good reviewer strengthens your own writing by helping you scrutinise your work from a reviewer’s perspective.
• Learn from open peer reviews. Examples of platforms include:
  • F1000Research – Fully open, named peer review published alongside the article
  • ELife – Transparent editorial decision letters and author responses
  • PREreview – Open, collaborative reviews of preprints, often community‑led
    These platforms make real reviewer feedback and author responses visible, helping demystify the peer‑review process.
• Practise by writing post‑publication peer reviews of preprints.
• Co‑review with your supervisor, senior colleague or friend.

How to give constructive feedback

Use the S.E.E. method:

• Statement – clearly state where the issue is.
• Explain – explain why it is an issue.
• Example – provide an example with evidence to support your statement and, where possible, provide a solution.

What you can expect to learn

• How the peer‑review process works
• How to provide useful, constructive and balanced feedback
• Practical tips and recommendations to improve your reviewing skills

Who should attend?

This workshop is ideal for:

• Early‑career and mid‑career researchers
• Anyone looking to develop their peer‑reviewing skills

Format and delivery

• Duration: 1-1.5 hours (flexible)
• Delivery mode: In person or online
• Availability: Offered on request for groups of students or researchers
  Request this workshop

Interested in hosting this workshop for your cohort or research group?  To arrange a session, Ask us.

Resources

• Workshop slides